Men's Clothing Forums banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Pics of M-1951 Field pants

Jump to Latest
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
T

Tom Rath

· Registered
Joined
·
951 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 · (Edited)
As promised (sorry for the delay), are some pictures of yours truly in a pair of my US Army M 1951 field pants. They are made of heavy weight green wool, with a very long rise. Some of mine have zippers, other buttons for the fly. They have side tabs and I generally cuff them with a 2 inch cuff. They are baggy, high waisted, and wide legged. I love them, and have just about all of my pants made to copy these.

Image


Image


Image
 
#2 ·
Pants

Gentlemen,

I know these pants. I never thought of wearing them as dress slacks. Primarily for extreme cold weather.
Nice look though.
Pleats?
I dont recall them being pleated.
Maybe they were.
Again, they look nice
Nice day my friend
 
Discussion starter · #3 ·
they have NO pleats.

I wear them as dress slacks, but if the rest of my wardrobe didnt compliment them, it would look out of place. Heavy tweed coats, old OCBD shirts, heavy ties, lots of vests. Clunky Alden shell boots and wingtips.
 
#5 ·
Trust the military(s) to source indestructable stuff. Those look great, very old-school.

From your photos, and historical photos I've run across, it looks like genuine military pants are cut with tight waistbands and generous around the pockets and 'soft areas'. For those of you who've served, what do your memories say?
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
Discussion starter · #6 ·
I can try to take better pics next time I wear the pants. And yes, they are made in such a way that they are snug on the waist (I still keep them a bit loose so I can wear suspenders), and then they have alot more room at the hips and thigh area (a great thing for guys like me who have thick lower bodies). This effect is really noticable in the last pic. They remain loose and straight legged all the way down to the hem. They are about 20.5 inches at the bottom. For comparison, take a look at Allens BB suit pants in the "minimalist" thread. Id wager they are 18 inches at the bottom. It comes down to personal preference and proportion with stuff like that. I wear heavy shoes, I have big feet, Im a larger size guy, so the wide proportions of the pants are in harmony with me. If I wore pants with a 18 inch bottom I would look silly.

They are indestructable pants. They are unlined, and it took me awhile to get used to that, since they were somewhat itchy when I first started wearing them.
 
#10 ·
Phil, thanks for posting these. Your pants look extremely comfortable, and certainly more 'authentic' than Bills. It seems that this is what the Bills M1s are imitating, but with less military overtones. You pants look distinctly WWII military.

I am looking forward to some clearer photos.
 
#11 ·
Phil said:
I can try to take better pics next time I wear the pants. And yes, they are made in such a way that they are snug on the waist (I still keep them a bit loose so I can wear suspenders), and then they have alot more room at the hips and thigh area (a great thing for guys like me who have thick lower bodies). This effect is really noticable in the last pic. They remain loose and straight legged all the way down to the hem. They are about 20.5 inches at the bottom. For comparison, take a look at Allens BB suit pants in the "minimalist" thread. Id wager they are 18 inches at the bottom. It comes down to personal preference and proportion with stuff like that. I wear heavy shoes, I have big feet, Im a larger size guy, so the wide proportions of the pants are in harmony with me. If I wore pants with a 18 inch bottom I would look silly.

They are indestructable pants. They are unlined, and it took me awhile to get used to that, since they were somewhat itchy when I first started wearing them.
Click to expand...
Phil, I heard about this trick years ago from an old tailor who had some customers who had returned from Britain or Scotland with tweed suits. They complained the trousers were itchy so the tailor had them buy a pair of fine silk pajamas and he sewed the bottoms into the trousers.
 
Discussion starter · #13 ·
Bills are definetely the most authentic of the mass market khakis out there, but they still lack in 2 areas - rise and leg width. As baggy as they are, they are only 19 inches at the bottom. These pants are 20.5. The rise on Bills, as long as it is on the M1s, is way shorter than these.

Im going to wear a pair today, I will take some pics if I have time.
 
#14 ·
Who said in a thread earlier that they had some custom trousers made here in NYC from a pair of M51s?

I like M51s, they color is too military to wear though, maybe w/ tweeds or sweaters like you say.

I have some M1937 trousers and original WW2 khakis and you are correct they have a longer rise and are baggier than Bills M1.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#15 ·
Love them

Like others, would love to see slightly better lighted photo, but I get the idea. The baggy-yet-flat-fronted-and-dressy look of these odd trousers is just wonderful. I'd love to have a pair of these.
 
Discussion starter · #16 ·
Squadron - Its me who gets his pants made based on the M 1951s.

You are correct, the color is very military green, and as such, has its limitations. Brown tweeds though look great with them, as do many shetland sweaters. I wear them cuffed and although they are military pants, can pass as somewhat dress trousers in most cases. Most comfortable pants I have ever owned.
 
#17 ·
To bring this thread back to life...

My 10yr old son is doing a report on Gen. Eisenhower, so we paid a visit to a local army/navy store this week. After getting him outfitted for his report, I decided to look around. I found a pair of these pants (they looked new). Very heavy green wool, side tabs, one back pocket. I was surprised that they had my size (I'm "alot" of man) so I bought them. Great pants, and certainly very different. They had a pretty good supply of these pants, and were around $25! Now if I can just find some of the original WWII khakis or the green army pants w/ back flap pockets (OG-107???). Anybody know any sources? Phil? Phil? Phil?
 
Discussion starter · #18 ·
original WWII khakis are near impossible to find in anything larger than a 28x28. Ive stop being surprised at how small and short legged men used to be. Every once in a while I see a pair on ebay that approach my size.

As far as the M-1951s go, all of mine actually have 2 back pockets, with flaps. The only variation I see in my collection is some have button flys and others zippers. Im surprised yours only have one back pocket. Do they say M-1951 in the waistband somewhere?
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
About this Discussion
22 Replies
15 Participants
Last post:
theoldguard
Men's Clothing Forums
posts
1.7M
members
84K
Since
2004
A forum community dedicated to men’s fashion and clothing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, materials, models, styles, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Timeless Style Trad Style The Interchange Food, Drink, Travel & The Arts Deals, Steals, & Sales!